Ludus FastMCP

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states the tool returns 'detailed deployment status' but doesn't disclose what that includes, whether it's real-time or cached, if there are rate limits, authentication requirements beyond the admin hint, or how it differs from 'quick_status'. For a status-checking tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is reasonably concise with three sentences, but the structure is inefficient. The core purpose is clear upfront, but the Args/Returns sections are redundant with the schema/output_schema. The 'admin only' note should be integrated into the main description rather than buried in parameter documentation.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool has an output schema (which handles return values) and only one parameter with some description coverage, the description is minimally adequate. However, for a deployment status tool in a complex environment with many sibling tools, it should better differentiate itself and explain what 'detailed information' entails compared to alternatives.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, but the description adds meaningful context for the single parameter: it explains that 'user_id' is optional and 'admin only'. This clarifies permission requirements and optionality beyond what the schema shows (just type and default). However, it doesn't explain what happens when user_id is provided versus omitted, or format expectations.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose with 'Get current deployment status with detailed information' - a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('deployment status'). It distinguishes from obvious siblings like 'quick_status' (likely less detailed) and 'get_deployment_metrics' (likely different data). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from all similar tools like 'monitor_deployment' or 'deployment_timeline'.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention when this detailed status is preferred over 'quick_status', nor does it reference other status-related tools like 'get_template_status' or 'monitor_deployment'. The only contextual hint is the admin-only note in the parameter section, but this isn't framed as usage guidance.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.